Massive drop in views on kid channels

So what do you think will happen? Biggest channels will remain ads and all the privileges and youtube and most importantly FTC won't give a damn? Sounds unlikely. Big Channels like Super simple songs or Little Baby Bum are 100% created towards kids, so that would be noticed by everyone that they weren't affected.

Little baby bum is on Netflix for kids. Wouldn't that mean they are reviewed first in accordance with laws and approved as suitable viewing?

Thought I'd just mention that cause I only watch Netflix kids with my son and they are on there. Got sick of seeing ads when my boy can't even understand them.
 
So what do you think will happen? Biggest channels will remain ads and all the privileges and youtube and most importantly FTC won't give a damn? Sounds unlikely. Big Channels like Super simple songs or Little Baby Bum are 100% created towards kids, so that would be noticed by everyone that they weren't affected.
No, I'm sure they'll get hit. But I mean stuff made by actual Disney and Will Smith and actual celebs won't be.
 
No, I'm sure they'll get hit. But I mean stuff made by actual Disney and Will Smith and actual celebs won't be.

How is this going to work? In that case YouTube bots would need to manually skip their content, or even if they would mark it as "for kids", those channels would make a dispute and YouTube would need to accept it. But what about FTC? They would also need to turn a blind eye and I don't really see how's that possible... Especially when we talk about "big fishes".
 

Mr. Johnston is suggesting that COPPA is unconstitutionally vague. The void for vagueness doctrine does not apply just because the regulation or statute raises difficult questions of fact. Statutes are only void for vagueness when they don't articulate a standard. Further even assuming arguendo that the statute is vague, you have to prove that it encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Just because Youtube LLC has utterly failed to provide clarity does not some how create any obstacle for the government to overcome. The FTC has treated this whole situation with kid gloves and exercised extreme discretion in allowing the status quo until January.

Mr. Johnston talks about Director Smith's comments about the unattended consequences of COPPA enforcement leading to a "desert of crap." Youtube is only going to become a "desert of crap" due to Youtube continuing to pursue their altered algorithm. Views aren't tied to ads, kids will gladly watch these videos without ads. The "desert of crap" argument is only valid when the government allows Youtube to refuse to take action to legally support kids content. Youtube can and should create a system where parents provide consent with age gates to allow children content to continue to thrive. Youtube has decided that profit is more important than protecting kids and loyal kid content creators. They are certainly free to make this business decision, but they are not free to lie about it particularly when they are wholly owned by a publicly traded company.

I respect Mr. Johnston's effort to protect his business, but he needs to provide a full disclaimer of what his advocacy is all about. His channel is mostly watched by kids and the inability to run personalized ads on his channel will result in a tremendous loss of revenue for him. There may be adults watching his channel, but the vast majority of his audience is kids. While I disagree with advocacy groups on many of their perspectives, there is valid research showing that this enforcement is necessary. We as content creators can't ignore this and we must be prepared to take concessions.

Mr. Johnston says that the best thing to do is continue to put pressure on the FTC. I disagree, the best thing to do is to continue to put the pressure on Youtube. It is quite clear at this point that they have NOT done enough.
 
Youtube put all my video made for kids, automatically
View attachment 43686

Dang that sucks. I'm still in wait and see mode with my mobile gaming content. YouTube hasn't flagged any of my videos, but I went through and manually marked the pokemon ones as for kids just to be safe. My revenue has stayed roughly normal through most of this so far interestingly. My audience is mostly people older than 25 as far as I can tell but the main game I play has some cartoon artwork so I don't know but for now I'm watching the lead of other gaming creators to try and see where the line is going to be drawn. I'm just going to keep gathering information and stay frosty until whenever the deadline to declare content is.
 
I have 2000 videos an many of them were auto-designated 'made for kids'. I went ahead and self designated two minor channels to be specifically kids channels.

image.jpegimage.jpeg
 
Mr. Johnston is suggesting that COPPA is unconstitutionally vague. The void for vagueness doctrine does not apply just because the regulation or statute raises difficult questions of fact. Statutes are only void for vagueness when they don't articulate a standard. Further even assuming arguendo that the statute is vague, you have to prove that it encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Just because Youtube LLC has utterly failed to provide clarity does not some how create any obstacle for the government to overcome. The FTC has treated this whole situation with kid gloves and exercised extreme discretion in allowing the status quo until January.

Mr. Johnston talks about Director Smith's comments about the unattended consequences of COPPA enforcement leading to a "desert of crap." Youtube is only going to become a "desert of crap" due to Youtube continuing to pursue their altered algorithm. Views aren't tied to ads, kids will gladly watch these videos without ads. The "desert of crap" argument is only valid when the government allows Youtube to refuse to take action to legally support kids content. Youtube can and should create a system where parents provide consent with age gates to allow children content to continue to thrive. Youtube has decided that profit is more important than protecting kids and loyal kid content creators. They are certainly free to make this business decision, but they are not free to lie about it particularly when they are wholly owned by a publicly traded company.

I respect Mr. Johnston's effort to protect his business, but he needs to provide a full disclaimer of what his advocacy is all about. His channel is mostly watched by kids and the inability to run personalized ads on his channel will result in a tremendous loss of revenue for him. There may be adults watching his channel, but the vast majority of his audience is kids. While I disagree with advocacy groups on many of their perspectives, there is valid research showing that this enforcement is necessary. We as content creators can't ignore this and we must be prepared to take concessions.

Mr. Johnston says that the best thing to do is continue to put pressure on the FTC. I disagree, the best thing to do is to continue to put the pressure on Youtube. It is quite clear at this point that they have NOT done enough.
Please listen to Terrors - YouTube needs to be the focus. You've all placed your 320948 spam comments to the FTC - now please understand that nothing productive will be done with that for a very long time, and that your lunch is going to be taken from you in the process. I fail to believe that Jeremy doesn't recognize YouTube as an issue - he makes comments about YouTube's handling of the situation being in its own vacuum, etc. There's a peculiar lack of focus on YouTube - and I wonder if it isn't for a reason. I hope that he isn't providing intentional misdirection by saying that the most impactful thing that creators can do is approach the FTC about this, because it isn't. YouTube is so content with being a third party to this matter, and their position in Jeremy's arguments certainly seems to match up.

Regardless of the path you take, you as a kid creator are between a rock and a hard place. The government doesn't move fast, and YouTube obviously would like to remain the invisible elephant in the room. Transfer your skills to the safest niche you can find and quit checking your analytics with your head in your hands! Yes, you've built up an empire - we know. Do it again!
 
I read on twitter they are considering chasing advertisers who are interested in advertising towards 18+ audience. Making all the yellow icon unsuitable for most advertisers videos suitable for them. Is this a YouTube back flip? Make the platform adult orientated? Source: https://www.marketing-interactive.c...-content-but-has-it-over-marketers-trust-yet/

That does make a lot sense but if they do that,they'll have to flag content as being "adult" and then probably add a filter for users to be able to hide "adult" content (from kids for example) otherwise we'll be back at square one again lol.
 
Back
Top